"My issue is the committee rushed this through," Gabriele said Tuesday. "You want to simplify this ethics code so a high school kid could understand what's a violation and what's not a violation."

Gabriele is still seeking reimbursement for about $154,000 in legal fees incurred during his 14-month defense of an ethics complaint lodged by city Fleet Manager Michael Scacco. The grievance, which alleged Gabriele improperly intervened in the disciplining of an employee under Scacco's supervision, was withdrawn in July 2011.

Stamford's Office of Legal Affairs has promised to pay Gabriele's "reasonable" legal expenses in the case, but the two sides have been unable to reach a settlement. A request for declaratory judgment on the matter is pending in court.

Gabriele's case exposed several critical ambiguities in the ethics code, and the committee has spent more than a year trying to clarify the document. A majority of committee discussions concerned legal fees in ethics cases -- a situation the existing code does not address.

"We can't undo the issues of the past," Chairwoman Eileen Heaphy said. "We're only trying to learn from them and fix things for the future."

The committee drafted an entirely new section on legal expenses, which requires the city to reimburse employees and elected officials if the ethics complaints against them are dropped, dismissed or withdrawn. Workers or officials found to have violated the Code of Ethics would not be reimbursed for their legal expenses, according to the proposed amendment.

"If somebody is wrong or has been treated badly and they are an elected or appointed official and they are not guilty or determined to have not violated the code of ethics -- then of course the city should help them," Heaphy said last month. "But as far as I'm concerned it's not going to be an open checkbook."

Gabriele told committee members he believes state law indemnifies city officials for their legal expenses in ethics cases, even if they are found to have violated the ethics code. Gabriele and several other city representatives have requested a legal opinion on the subject.

"That would be the first thing that anybody would do -- to make sure that it's consistent with state law," city Rep. Polly Rauh, D-6, said at a July committee meeting. "We've spent time, months and months and months on this, and we haven't gone to a very basic element."

"At the moment I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole," Capalbo told the committee in July.

On Monday, Gabriele repeated his request for a legal analysis on whether state law requires municipalities to indemnify employees and officials in all ethics cases. Heaphy said she believes the statute is open for interpretation, and said she would not ask Capalbo to issue a written opinion.

"We're not going to ask corporation counsel for the definitive reading on this because there is no definitive reading," Heaphy said.

In an effort to prevent city officials from racking up massive legal bills, the committee drafted an ethics code provision providing for "a written agreement defining the proposed scope of work and hourly rate or other fee agreement ... prior to the start of covered services."

The corporation counsel would have the authority to establish a reasonable hourly rate and monetary cap on legal fees from ethics cases, according to the proposed amendment. City officials would be reimbursed after their cases conclude.

The committee also voted Monday to add several other provisions to the ethics code. One proposal calls for the director of human resources to create and distribute an ethics handbook to Stamford officers and employees. The director will also be responsible for developing and delivering ethics training to all workers and elected officials.

City representatives also approved a confidentiality requirement, which would allow the ethics board to dismiss complaints leaked to the media. Ethics complaints would only become public if the ethics board's investigating panel determined there was probable cause to believe the ethics code had been violated.

The ethics board adopted a similar confidentiality measure last year in an attempt to prevent the filing of frivolous complaints. Gabriele criticized the requirement as impractical.

"The problem that you have is the respondent could leak the complaint to the press and then accuse the complainant of releasing the complaint (in order to have it dismissed)," Gabriele said Tuesday. "How would you know who released it? What are you going to do, hook them up to a lie detector machine?"

The amendment approved Monday still faces several legislative hurdles before it is officially adopted. The full Board of Representatives will vote in November whether to approve the ordinance for public hearing. The Legislative and Rules Committee will then hold at least one public hearing before voting to pass the amendment on to the full board for final approval.